Staggering increase in uninsured in the last 5 years.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_he_me/uninsured_americans

NEW YORK - The percentage of working-age Americans with moderate to middle incomes who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year rose to 41 percent in 2005, a dramatic increase from the 28 percent in 2001 without coverage, a study released on Wednesday found.
Moreover, more than half of the uninsured adults said they were having problems paying their medical bills or had incurred debt to cover their expenses, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based private, health care policy foundation.



WOW. A 13 percent increase in only 5 years. Carrying this forward in another 5 years we will be at 54 percent without coverage. We will have broken thru the 50 percent barrier.
And in 5 years 27 percent of the middle class will have problems paying their medical bills or have gone into debt paying their medical bills.
Imagine over 1 in 4 !!!
This is a staggering problem. And it certainly indicates the problem is not in peoples failure to save for medical care but their inability to afford health care.
Its the end of the middle class in America if we don't do something.

 

[lozina]

There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Both systems are flawed. It really doesn't matter which system we have because there are serious problems with both. Our system leaves a lot without medical insurance (though they can still get emergency medical care). Socialized systems like those in Canada and most of Europe are "free", but the quality of care is much lower and there are very long waits (months-years) to get any kind of treatment. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those without health care want the "free" stuff because it will be better than what they currently have. Those that currently have it want to keep it this way because they receive very high quality care.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Both systems are flawed. It really doesn't matter which system we have because there are serious problems with both. Our system leaves a lot without medical insurance (though they can still get emergency medical care). Socialized systems like those in Canada and most of Europe are "free", but the quality of care is much lower and there are very long waits (months-years) to get any kind of treatment. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those without health care want the "free" stuff because it will be better than what they currently have. Those that currently have it want to keep it this way because they receive very high quality care.

Our system "breaks" people who've worked and saved all their lives and suddenly find themselves without insurance through no fault of their own.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Both systems are flawed. It really doesn't matter which system we have because there are serious problems with both. Our system leaves a lot without medical insurance (though they can still get emergency medical care). Socialized systems like those in Canada and most of Europe are "free", but the quality of care is much lower and there are very long waits (months-years) to get any kind of treatment. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those without health care want the "free" stuff because it will be better than what they currently have. Those that currently have it want to keep it this way because they receive very high quality care.

Our system "breaks" people who've worked and saved all their lives and suddenly find themselves without insurance through no fault of their own.

Just have to wait till it hits mid 50's to 60's. Than you have the majorit of people without health care just waiting to be bought for an election. That is when you will see changes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

The story makes no mention of the makeup of their sample. How many in the sample were illegals? What was the age makeup of the sample?

Surveys like this aren't news. They don't publish enough infomration to draw an accurate conclusion. But I suppose it makes for a great way to stir up the socialized medicine crowd.

Meanwhile, 51 percent of women without health insurance haven't had a mammogram in two years, compared to 22.8 percent of women with insurance.

Perfect example... Ages of uninsured vs insured? Citizen or illegal? That's important. If the ages of the uninsured skew to the younger end of the spectrum then the reason for the 51% not getting a mammagram may be that they just don't need an annual mammagram. Likewise, illegals are going to be less likely to seek preventative medicine for fear of being deported. (Although considering our current immigration policy that fear seems rather unfounded)

Point is, you don't have enough information to make a conclusion about the apparent rise in uninsured.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

The one thing most articles fail to point out is that even without medical insurance you can still go to the local hospital emergency room for treatment. You also have people who purposely elect to not have medical coverage and pay out of pocket.

The press likes to represent these people as lacking medical care when its not true, they simply lack coverage. hospitals must help them if they need it.

healthcare isn't a right. I certainly am against paying for someone elses health care because of their unhealthy lifestyles.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Exactly.. you tell um mr war stocks..

Profit over life is always the American Way

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060426/ap_on_he_me/uninsured_americans

NEW YORK - The percentage of working-age Americans with moderate to middle incomes who lacked health insurance for at least part of the year rose to 41 percent in 2005, a dramatic increase from the 28 percent in 2001 without coverage, a study released on Wednesday found.
Moreover, more than half of the uninsured adults said they were having problems paying their medical bills or had incurred debt to cover their expenses, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based private, health care policy foundation.



WOW. A 13 percent increase in only 5 years. Carrying this forward in another 5 years we will be at 54 percent without coverage. We will have broken thru the 50 percent barrier.
And in 5 years 27 percent of the middle class will have problems paying their medical bills or have gone into debt paying their medical bills.
Imagine over 1 in 4 !!!
This is a staggering problem. And it certainly indicates the problem is not in peoples failure to save for medical care but their inability to afford health care.
Its the end of the middle class in America if we don't do something.

WOW. Talk about misleading numbers. I'm not saying that health coverage isn't a problem, but your selective quoting from a misleading article makes it seem worse then it is... also from the article:

Overall, the percentage of people without insurance rose to 28 percent in 2005 from 24 percent in 2001.

So that's a 4 percentage point increase in 4 years, not 13.

This study also seeems to define "uninsured" as being without coverage "for at least part of the year." Seems a bit flakey to me. What's "at least part of the year," a day, a week, a month? It doesn't mention why these people didn't have insurance "for at least part of the year." It could be that some people were switching jobs, which could cause a lapse in coverage.

Here's some numbers I found from the census bureau for 2004 (couldn't fine 2005 numbers):

Link

The number of people with health insurance coverage increased by 2.0 million in 2004, to 245.3 million (84.3 percent of the population).

In 2004, 45.8 million people were without health insurance coverage, up from 45.0 million people in 2003.

There was no change in the percentage of people without health insurance coverage (15.7 percent) between 2003 and 2004.

The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from 1987 to 1998 when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987) either increased or was unchanged from one year to the next (Figure 5)1. After peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two years in a row to 14.2 percent in 2000, and the rate increased for three years before stabilizing at 15.7 percent in 2004.

The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2004 was 11.3 percent and 22.0 million for non-Hispanic Whites, and 19.7 percent and 7.2 million for Blacks. The figures for both groups were unchanged from 2003. The uninsured rate for Asians decreased from 18.8 percent to 16.8 percent (Table 7).

The number of uninsured increased in 2004 for Hispanics (from 13.2 million in 2003 to 13.7 million); their uninsured rate was unchanged at 32.7 percent (Table 7).

Notice some things about these numbers:
- The total uninsured rate is 15.7%, not the 28% quoted in the article, and FAR from the 41% you took from the article.

- The peak uninsured rate shown in this data was 16.3% in 1998.

- There were 2mil more people insured in 2004 then in 2003.

- Yes, there were also 800k more people without health coverage. but if you look at the breakdown, 500k of that was accounted for in the Hispanic population (not to mention their disproportionately high uninsured rate of 32.7%). Now, I'm not saying that all of the Hispanic population is here illegally, but there is some merit in saying that a decent proportion is, by many of the estimates people throw around.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: techs
Its the end of the middle class in America

Republican Mission Accomplished

 

[nergee]

"The 2005 Health Insurance Survey, sponsored by The Commonwealth Fund, obtained
telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 4,350 adults age 19 and older
living in the continental United States. Interviews were completed in both English and Spanish, according to the preference of the respondent. The interviews were conducted by Princeton Data Source during the period of August 18, 2005 through January 5, 2006. The sample was designed to target low-income, African-American and Hispanic households. Statistical results are weighted to correct for the disproportionate sample design and to make the final total sample results representative of all adults age 19 and older living in the continental U.S. The margin of sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is ±2.0%."

Just some background info on how they conducted this survey........

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The one thing most articles fail to point out is that even without medical insurance you can still go to the local hospital emergency room for treatment. You also have people who purposely elect to not have medical coverage and pay out of pocket.

The press likes to represent these people as lacking medical care when its not true, they simply lack coverage. hospitals must help them if they need it.

healthcare isn't a right. I certainly am against paying for someone elses health care because of their unhealthy lifestyles.

What you have failed to mention is that hospitals are now going after everyone who they treat for payment. And with the new bankruptcy laws anyone thinking they will just use the ER as a doctor will still pay.

 

[Thump553]

No big surprise to anyone that pays for their own health insurance. I'm self employed and pay nearly $10k per year for crappy coverage (basically catestrophic only, no dental or Rx) for a small family in good health who rarely visit the doctor. Before that, with my previous employer, my health insurance cost basically doubled in five years (again, with very few claims).

Darn few people can afford to pay that kind of bill out of their own pocket.

 

[Cerb]

$232/mo for the next year. Got it in the mail yesterday. There's a fair chance I'll be in that uninsured group within the month, unless RossMan finds good health insurance deals .

 

[umbrella39]

Ah always nice to see the old "If you are posting about how fewer and fewer working Americans have health insurance you must be advocating socialized medicine" bullsh!t. The same who defend the oil companies. And the bottom line is for the most part, these America haters have money invested in both and love nothing more than to see the price of gas and the increasing number of uninsured go upwards. Profit is all that matters to these people. Even funnier is the occasional teen who chirps in and questions whether or not the number of uninsured Americans are REALLY on the rise. FFS. :roll:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Both systems are flawed. It really doesn't matter which system we have because there are serious problems with both. Our system leaves a lot without medical insurance (though they can still get emergency medical care). Socialized systems like those in Canada and most of Europe are "free", but the quality of care is much lower and there are very long waits (months-years) to get any kind of treatment. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those without health care want the "free" stuff because it will be better than what they currently have. Those that currently have it want to keep it this way because they receive very high quality care.

You don't know what you are talking about. The Basic care which is the foundation of healthcare varies little between the US and other Western countries . . . except of course most Western countries actually provide it to everyone.

Long waits are for specialist care. One problem is the specialists that are in it for the money "flee" to the US where there's an abundance of really sick people (weak prevention/public health) and funds (VA, Medicare, insurance).

Due to the structure of our healthcare financing system, even people without access subsidize the care of others. That's not only bad public policy . . . it's downright immoral.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: lozina
There is no problem with our healthcare system, it is just fine and dandy. What do you want, a socialist system like in Canada? Yeah let's see the paltry profit margins for health insurance companies in Canada, now there's the depressing statistics!

Both systems are flawed. It really doesn't matter which system we have because there are serious problems with both. Our system leaves a lot without medical insurance (though they can still get emergency medical care). Socialized systems like those in Canada and most of Europe are "free", but the quality of care is much lower and there are very long waits (months-years) to get any kind of treatment. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Those without health care want the "free" stuff because it will be better than what they currently have. Those that currently have it want to keep it this way because they receive very high quality care.

You don't know what you are talking about. The Basic care which is the foundation of healthcare varies little between the US and other Western countries . . . except of course most Western countries actually provide it to everyone.

Long waits are for specialist care. One problem is the specialists that are in it for the money "flee" to the US where there's an abundance of really sick people (weak prevention/public health) and funds (VA, Medicare, insurance).

Due to the structure of our healthcare financing system, even people without access subsidize the care of others. That's not only bad public policy . . . it's downright immoral.

People can discuss statistics and play with numbers all they like. However, in what we like to refer to as the "best" and richest country in the world, in a supposed free and democratic society where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness form the basis of our beliefs, a few essentials should be without question. People should have food, shelter, clothing, and they should have access to health care, preventive as well as acute.

Anything less, in a country with the supposed ideals and riches America has is, as you say, BBD, downright immoral.

There are some very basic human needs that transcend the anything for a buck mentality that the very riches one percent has been able to make the basis of public policy since the bush republicans have taken over our goverment.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Thump553
No big surprise to anyone that pays for their own health insurance. I'm self employed and pay nearly $10k per year for crappy coverage (basically catestrophic only, no dental or Rx) for a small family in good health who rarely visit the doctor. Before that, with my previous employer, my health insurance cost basically doubled in five years (again, with very few claims).

Darn few people can afford to pay that kind of bill out of their own pocket.

Insurance is getting crappier and crappier because it's getting to the point that darn few employers can afford to pay it also, but as long as your better off then the poor slob without any it's OK. This should start to be an issue soon. We have per capitia the most expensive health care system in the world, but so many people have either crappy insurance or no inusrance any reasonable person has to ask themselves what the hell is going on?!?